TRADITIONAL ECOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE AS A CONCEPT AND DATA SOURCE FOR HISTORICAL ECOLOGY, VEGETATION SCIENCE AND CONSERVATION BIOLOGY: A HUNGARIAN PERSPECTIVE

Abstract

Historical data are crucial in understanding landsc ape dynamics and in planning nature conservation management. The present knowledge of becologists, nature conservationists, farmers and foresters, however, seems to be insuffi cient for reliable planning and realization of natu re conservation management in Europe. One reason for t his is that we know little about the traditional relationship between nature and humans. In the past , knowledge of people working in nature was ample for sustainability, since they managed their environment in order to sustain their communities for the long run. Although this knowledge is decayi ng rapidly with modernization, it still exists in Central-Europe. It exists in such a quantity that twill not likely be enough (historical) ecologi sts and botanists in our countries to collect, “sustain ” and use the related scientific ecological, botani cal knowledge, which is commensurable in quantity to tr aditional ecological local knowledge. It is generally accepted, that traditional ecologic al knowledge completes scientific ecological knowledge efficiently in the solution of nature con servation issues. Traditional knowledge seems to be more relevant at local scales, while science has a larger contribution at the global to regional scale . Although a portion of the traditional ecological kn owledge has been collected by ethnographers, anthropologists and geographers interested in ecolo gical issues, it is not documented and published sufficiently due to the obligate limits of theoretical and personal field ecological knowledge and, al so, due to the varying range of scientific interests. W e would like to argue in this paper that only an ecologist can accomplish an effective collection of traditional ecological knowledge. If we do not undertake this job we will have to rely upon the co llection and publications of social scientists and probably would not notice accidental false data, mi sconceptions and, particularly, thematic and lexical gaps in the collection.